Beyond Feminism

I’d like to make clear that I am not against “democracy” per se. What I’m criticizing is what democracy looks like at the moment. I’m expressing what I believe most people feel in their gut: that choosing between bad and worse is not democracy. And it’s not part of “this” current election (I’m using the term “this” vaguely on purpose). Not only is the same situation present in every single election, (something older people know well), but it’s also present in most supposedly “democratic” nations. The reason for this is obvious: “teh powerz” is not in the hands of people nor is it in the hands of the government. It’s in the hands of the Big Moneymakers to whom the government (and the people, for that matter) must pander to.

We need a far more radical change than a mere switch between “the party on the far right and the party not so far on the right”.

For an excellent view on how “choosing between bad and worse” isn’t all that good for women in particular, you could do worse than check out Melissa McEwan’s latest essay. Published in a web page that shall now be referred to as “the page that doesn’t care much about the sexualization of young girls, as shown by the ad of Miley’s latest video which consists of a sequence of images of her pouting at the camera with her eyes closed, and many other girls innocently hugging and kissing teddys and winking at the camera”. Which pretty much proves Melissa’s point: the left isn’t listening to us, and we won’t shut up about it. (at least I like to think that’s the point she’s making ;))

I have been reading, listening and watching Noam Chomsky lately (yes, I am a baby lefy feminist taking her first steps into the field of ideas). And because I believe strongly in passing the wisdom on, here I give you tiny snippets of his thoughs. If you can read the whole articles, that’s good and if you read his books, that’s even better. But if you can’t, like me, for whatever reason, then I strongly advice you to read this quotes, or, if you can’t, read my emphasis of them. They have clarified lots of things for me.

From “The Spectacular Achievements of Propaganda”

“The people in the public relations industry aren’t there for the fun of it. They’re doing
work. They’re trying to instill the right values. In fact, they have a conception of what democracy ought to be: It ought to be a system in which the specialized class is trained to work in the service of the masters, the people who own the society. The rest of the population ought to be deprived of any form of organization, because organization just causes trouble. They ought to be sitting alone in front of the TV and having drilled into their heads the message, which says, the only value in life is to have more commodities or live like that rich middle class family you’re watching and to have nice values like harmony and Americanism. That’s all there is in life. You may think in your own head that there’s got to be something more in life than this, but since you’re watching the tube alone you assume, I must be crazy, because that’s all that’s going on over there. And since there is no organization permitted—that’s absolutely crucial—you never have a way of finding out whether you are crazy, and you just assume it, because it’s the natural thing to assume.”

From “What Makes Mainstream Media Mainstream”

“”The universities, for example, are not independent institutions. (…) It’s dependent on outside sources of support and those sources of support, such as private wealth, big corporations with grants, and the government (which is so closely interlinked with corporate power you can barely distinguish them), they are essentially what the universities are in the middle of. People within them, who don’t adjust to that structure, who don’t accept it and internalize it (you can’t really work with it unless you internalize it, and believe it); people who don’t do that are likely to be weeded out along the way, starting from kindergarten, all the way up. There are all sorts of filtering devices to get rid of people who are a pain in the neck and think independently. Those of you who have been through college know that the educational system is very highly geared to rewarding conformity and obedience; if you don’t do that, you are a troublemaker. So, it is kind of a filtering device which ends up with people who really honestly (they aren’t lying) internalize the framework of belief and attitudes of the surrounding power system in the society.”
“When you critique the media and you say, look, here is what Anthony Lewis or somebody else is writing, they get very angry. They say, quite correctly, “nobody ever tells me what to write. I write anything I like. All this business about pressures and constraints is nonsense because I’m never under any pressure.” Which is completely true, but the point is that they wouldn’t be there unless they had already demonstrated that nobody has to tell them what to write because they are going say the right thing. If they had started off at the Metro desk, or something, and had pursued the wrong kind of stories, they never would have made it to the positions where they can now say anything they like. The same is mostly true of university faculty in the more ideological disciplines. They have been through the socialization system.”
“Okay, you look at the structure of that whole system. What do you expect the news to be like? Well, it’s pretty obvious. Take the New York Times. It’s a corporation and sells a product. The product is audiences. They don’t make money when you buy the newspaper. They are happy to put it on the worldwide web for free. They actually lose money when you buy the newspaper. But the audience is the product. The product is privileged people, just like the people who are writing the newspapers, you know, top-level decision-making people in society. You have to sell a product to a market, and the market is, of course, advertisers (that is, other businesses). Whether it is television or newspapers, or whatever, they are selling audiences. Corporations sell audiences to other corporations. In the case of the elite media, it’s big businesses. “
“The next thing you discover is that this whole topic is completely taboo. If you go to the Kennedy School of Government or Stanford, or somewhere, and you study journalism and communications or academic political science, and so on, these questions are not likely to appear. (…) If you look at the institutional structure, you would say, yeah, sure, that’s got to happen because why should these guys want to be exposed? Why should they allow critical analysis of what they are up to take place? The answer is, there is no reason why they should allow that and, in fact, they don’t. Again, it is not purposeful censorship. It is just that you don’t make it to those positions. That includes the left (what is called the left), as well as the right. Unless you have been adequately socialized and trained so that there are some thoughts you just don’t have, because if you did have them, you wouldn’t be there.”
“(…) By manufacturing consent, you can overcome the fact that formally a lot of people have the right to vote. We can make it irrelevant because we can manufacture consent and make sure that their choices and attitudes will be structured in such a way that they will always do what we tell them, even if they have a formal way to participate. (…)”

You’ve probably heard about this book, “The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism”. Maybe you’ve already bought it and read it 3 times. But in case you haven’t, or can’t for a number of reasons, I’ve just found this talk by her outlining the theory of the book, from December-ish last year. It’s in handy mp3 format and here’s the link, courtesy of KGNU Independent Community Radio. All you have to do is right click on it, select “Save Target As” and save it! How neat is that?

Link to mp3 file, Naomi Klein’s “The Shock Doctrine”.

PS: pass the knowledge on!

I’ve just done an important diservice to my stress-level and read Echidne’s post on intersectionality. And what the F is intersectionality? In her own words:

“”Intersectionality”, as far as I understand it, means that it’s important to look at women positioned in all the different places in the society: poor women, women who are ethnic minorities, religious women, immigrant women, lesbians, disabled women, to give a few examples, and to make sure that the way feminism is practiced isn’t just to benefit those who already are fairly well placed, as women are concerned.”

It gets better. Here’s Valenti’s idea of intersectionality:

“(…) One of these claims is that mainstream feminists have ignored an “intersectional” approach to feminism–one that takes class, race and sexuality into account”

And here’s what I say to them: AWESOME. Good Stuff. Just one tiny, minor, entirely unimportant thing: HOW. HOW ON EARTH ARE YOU PLANNING TO DO THAT.

With LIBERALISM???

Every so often, the amount of pretended concern I can take reaches critical levels and I literally explode. This time, I’m unfairly picking on something Echidne and Jessica said, only because they happened to make up the last 2 straws that set me off. In all honesty, this stuff is everywhere.
But what exactly is this “pretended concern” that annoys me so much? It’s people’s aparent concern for things that need changing. It’s only “aparent”, mind you, because they never consider the possible solutions. Why? BECAUSE NO ONE WANTS THE SOLUTIONS. Let me say it loud and clear:

No one wants poor people, women or not, to stop being poor. No one wants inmigrant people, women or not, to stop being inmigrants*. NO ONE. Because that would piss off the God of Capitalism. For the poor to stop being poor, the rich would have to stop being rich. FAT CHANCE OF THAT HAPPENING! For inmigration to stop being the mess it is today, the poor countries would have to stop being poor. And for the poor countries to stop being poor, the rich countries would have to stop being rich. Again, FAT CHANCE OF THAT HAPPENING.

Anyone can play the “I’m so concerned” part. It guarantees you a considerable aura of sweetness. Just remember to pout, look very sad and under no circumstance should you hint at a solution.

*Here, I mean poor inmigrants, of course. No one raises a peep when rich people come to their countries. Like when the British move to Spain looking for “a place under the Sun”.

NOTE: I am not accusing either Echidne or Jessica of anything.

I know. The very word “censorship” is enough to send all liberals’ head into a centrifugal spin cycle.

The basic feminist argument to ban pornography goes along the lines of “it’s violent, misogynistic, degrading, racist, dehumanizing, objectifying, etc”. You can take your pick. The basic argument to not ban pornography, or indeed anything, goes along the lines of “free speech!!! *sob* *pout*”.
I’m gonna have my courtesy take a leave of absence for a line. Take your free speech and shove it! Thank you. Now normal, proper, writing may continue.

It’s an unfortunate and mean joke of destiny that anti-porn feminists get to be hit on the head with “free speech” twice, from both sides. See, free speech is all very peachy as long as the “wrong” kind of people ie: too lefty and too radical feminist, don’t get to put a word edgeways.
See, the laws that protect “free speech” are not needed anymore. The fact that today people aren’t killed for saying the “wrong” things isn’t a result of the killers turning into nice, fair beings, bur rather of people not saying anything at all. Power is so centralized, the system so deeply rooted that even if people came up with something to say against it, their words would have no impact. Yes, keep on talking, no one will take you seriously anyway. Here, have freedom of speech!
Furthermore, now what truly regulates what gets to be said and what doesn’t, are the market laws. If it sells, it’s out there. But if it doesn’t, no one will ever know of it. Worse still, if it gets in the way of the “big” selling, then by the Powers that Be it will be “hidden”. Or rather, it will be chopped into itty bitty pieces, put on a big bag and thrown at the river with a big rock tied to it. This is in practise just another form of censorship, only unofficial. I’m not going to continue with this particular argument because there’s more than one and more than two people out there whose entire belief system and/or religion is based on the market laws. They really believe they are the ones that will bring happiness, freedom and joy to human kind. So any attack to the market laws by pointing out that they are responsible for effectively censoring that speech which could open the eyes of millions to the true atrocity that is porn will fall on deaf, blind and mute ears.
Suffices to say that when we radical feminists dare raise our voices against pornography, we are ignored by even the most pro “free speech”-ers. I tried to find information on “Censorship” and “Andrea Dworkin” on the internet by typing those terms on my search engine. Guess what came out. Hint, it wasn’t “pro” censorship or “pro” Andrea Dworkin. Even on the internet, we are not the voice being heard when it comes to women and porn. But maybe this only happens in the real “mainstream” media. Maybe it is different in other publications who are protected by “free speech” but who also don’t get to be heard by anyone. I’m sorry to break it to you, but it isn’t. So as you can see, “free speech” is working very well: we don’t exist. Not amongst the left. And not even amongst our own ilk. If it is true that feminism is far from having any space on the mainstream culture, anti-porn feminists barely have any space on mainstream feminism. It doesn’t sell. It actually gets in the way of the selling. Shut up about it all.

But this is not the end of it, because “free speech” is not done in silencing us. The strongest argument against pornography is that it would attempt against it. That’s right. Never mind that there is no real “speech” in pornography safe for the constant spouting of virulent insults of the “whore-bitch-slut” kind. Never mind that were you to take the sex away from porn, it would undoubtedly constitute the most blatant example of “hate speech” ever conceived. And here, we have arrived to the key of the problem. That the laws that are already in place to protect minorities from purposeless violence masqueraded as speech, that is, the laws that say “from here on, this is hate speech” aren’t used when it comes to women. And this is partly related to the good old hypocritical “how can we tell what is violent, misogynistic, degrading, racist, dehumanizing, objectifying, etc and what isn’t”. I remember I asked a similar question in an Amnesty International meeting. How can we tell what is indeed “bad” and worthy of action from what isn’t? The answer was basically “we are dealing with the worst of the worst, there is no doubt that this is bad”. I wonder why the same argument isn’t valid when it comes to pornography. Is it because misogyny is universally accepted, while human rights (read MALE human rights) abuse isn’t? Is it because the violence and degradation are wrapped around sex and no one wants to tell other people what they are not supposed to do in bed?
The idea that we couldn’t possibly distinguish between the bad and the good, between porn and erotica, is entirely made of straw. And the question of “what constitutes what” tells us more about the person asking it than about porn itself. If people have become so used to violent, misogynistic, degrading, racist, dehumanizing, objectifying, etc imagery that they cannot differentiate it from what isn’t, then we have a problem. Indeed, this is precisely what anti-porn feminists have been saying all along. The problem is precisely that no one is horrified by this violent, misogynistic, degrading, racist, dehumanizing, objectifying, etc as they should. But I’m not allowed to say that. I would be inflicting my morality upon someone, self appointing myself as a moral authority. And the only people who can still do that with impunity are members of the church. In these days of moral relativism and “everything goes” no morality is any better than any other. In fact, having no morality is OK as well! Heck, I am surprised we still have any laws left with this kind of mentality. Enough already. Violence, misogyny, degradation, racism, dehumanization, objectification, they are all wrong and immoral, by themselves and more so when combined. And in porn, this not only is given a “pass” but is actually presented as essential to the epitome of male pleasure. Let’s pause and think about that again. Violence, misogyny, degradation, racism, dehumanization, objectification, is presented as inextricably linked to male pleasure. The logical conclusion of this is that men enjoy violence, misogyny, degradation, racism, dehumanization, objectification. Why they must, if they get off to it! If anything, what kind of monsters is this presenting men as? Worse still, what kind of monsters is this making men of?*

I’m gonna tell you here and now what I would happen if we banned pornography. In one sentence: it would move the ante up by a lot. What today is extreme and illegal would just disappear. Because what today is mainstream would be the new “illegal” and extreme. And what today is not porn, because we can get it in news agents, page 3 of national newspapers, front page of rubbish newspapers, back page of sports newspapers, etc would suddenly be the only fully legal masturbatory material available. The “soft core porn” of today would fill the void left by the “illegal” mainstream porn. (This, ironically, would benefit pornographers the most. They are already puzzled about how to increase the “titillation” (read violence and degradation) bar. They have gone so far there’s nowhere else to go. There are only so many ways you can fork a woman.) Clearly, this case scenario is far from depicting the end of the world and civilization as we know it. Men would still get their precious pictures; they’d only be less violence, misogyny, degradation, racism, dehumanization, objectification, etc in them. And notice I’ve said “less” and not “none”. The work still won’t be over. Because what we really want is for men to stop wanting to see the violence, misogyny, degradation, racism, dehumanization, objectification, etc, not just to have it less available. But it’s a step forward. It’s a good, long needed step forward towards ending all this needless pain.

I am sick and tired. I am sick and tired of fighting to open eyes to something that should be blatantly obvious. Ladies, it is blatantly obvious. And by goddess, pornography will go away, one way or the other. How can I be so sure? Simple. We are fighting for human dignity. And human dignity ALWAYS wins in the end. And because the right of someone to have their pleasure increased cannot trump the right of someone to NOT have their pain increased. End of story. And pornography causes pain. To the ones involved in making it, to the ones viewing it and to the ones who have to put up with the ones who view it.

*As the radical feminist already knows, mysandry is just the other side of misogyny. Men cannot treat women like dirt without becoming the “bad” people who are treating other human beings like dirt.

I have been aware for some time of the fact that new ideas of all types and forms are subject to shaping by the prevailing system, ie: capitalism and the megatheocorporatocracy. Science and in particular, anthropology, are no exception. It has always amazed me that no one seems to have drawn attention to this particular bias. Though of course, if people cannot conceive the existence of an alternative system, if people have internalized the status quo to the point that it becomes second nature, the be all, end all of human arrangements, then there is little wonder that everything they see will be tainted by it. The theory of evolution is a great example. We like it, it seems to work fine, and for the most part I am willing to make concessions and give it a pass. However, when it comes to human beings, then I’m afraid I have to speak out. The whole of human interaction is basically reduced to this classical example of capitalism in practise. The ultimate goal is to produce, the more the better. The produce? Offspring. The means of production? Women. The owners of the means of production? Men. If I was less humble, I would call it Capitalist Anthropology. And the more you think about it, the more sense it makes. Every human action is reduced to maximizing the chances of survival, with the sole goal of maximizing the production. Everything we hold dear and makes us human, love, friendship, solidarity, empathy, every single expression of affection, no matter how altruistic, is reduced to improvement of the means of production or to the increasing of the chances of survival.

Now, of course I don’t know anymore than anthropologists know if this is indeed the way things really are. But one has to recognize that in a world dominated by one single ideology, one single economic system, this cannot less than sound suspicious. However, every now and then, anthropologists take this ideas so far that it becomes crystal clear for most of us, if nor for them, that they have got it wrong somewhere. And this is one of those times: “Male macaques pay for sex”. Every non educated, barely sane person will look at this and think, “well, I had been touched for quite some time, I would also want to make out”. I know I am a fairly ignorant person, and I may be totally off here, but as I understand it, any economic system and/or transaction sits on top of basic human behaviour, not amongst it. We cannot claim that natural human behaviour is dominated by an economic system because economic systems are something we create to support our natural human behaviour. Sure, an economic system can change human behaviour and indeed it does, but that’s not what these people are after here. They want to unravel the mysteries of the intrinsic human nature through the application of economic laws, and capitalist laws at that.

But hey, I could be entirely wrong.

Now, I’ve explained that this blog will try to go further than feminism, hence the name, and I think I’ve done so here. In case you are disappointed by the treatment I’ve given to this news and you are looking for the real, juicy feminist take, you can find some of it here, here and here.

Note: I remember reading somewhere that male chimpanzees are the ones who groom each other the most. Better ignore this in case there are homophobes reading. LOL.

Imagine the joy in my little feminist heart when I stumbled upon this article written by the editor of “The F word”, one of my most favourite feminist touchstones.
But, alas, I was disappointed. My little feminist heart should have kept said joy at pole length distance.
Let’s go through the problematic points in it, shall we?

“Clichéd dungaree wearers of yesteryear”. What a nice way to refer to feminists of previous generations, to whom we owe so much. And what is wrong with wearing dungarees anyways? Is a woman’s point, ideology, or principle any LESS valid if she’s wearing dungarees? Or ANYTHING at all? I thought the whole point of feminism is stopping the world from giving three flips about what women wear, which, after all, is none of their flipping business.

Then there’s the first interview of a “non-self-proclaimed” feminist. Which kinda misses the point, if one is writing a piece about “the new feminists”.

“My boyfriend today is a massive girl about everything”. Why, you say? Is he wearing pink dresses, pigtails and weighting 50 stone? Ehm, no. He wants to know where their relationship is going. Because that’s what girls do, of course. Remember? Women with emotions, Men with… hunting. Men not being allowed to have emotions is one of the most painful consequences of patriarchy on MEN.
 “The problem is that too often feminism is whiny and depressing. It is not fun and it is not interesting.” Cheese, I didn’t know we have started a political movement in which no one believes in, which no one cares about, which alienates us from the whole of society, and guarantees us that we will be suffering from hate-speech until we die (or until we shut up), all so that we could have “fun”. Maybe I didn’t get the memo. “HAVE FUN”. Checked. Next time, I won’t give three flips about anything and enjoy myself. (Can’t you tell that this girls is well young and belongs to the fun-atious generation who seek fun above all else?)
 “I hate sordid lap-dancing clubs, but not in a political sense”. She might as well get on with it and say “hey, don’t take me for one of those hairy, dungaree wearing, whiny, anti-fun feminists; I have nothing against lap-dancing. Hi Boys!”. We can always rely on “non-feminists” to defend all that’s loved and sacred in our patriarchal world. If you actually thought about it, without dwelling on the consequences of not being considered “fun” by the male of the species, you would realize that, in a power structure like patriarchy, a woman stripping for a man for money IS a political issue. And if you were remotely feminist, you would realize that you have to oppose it.

This just goes to prove that the patriarchal system in which we live permeates every single aspect of our lives, and is impossible to escape completely from it. HOWEVER, the other feminists interviewed did seem to me like true feminists in spite of it all. There is still hope, I know there is.

As a side note, the next time someone needs a “feminist” to interview, they can count on me for the job. I may not have achieved that much in my life, but you can be sure as hell I’ve ALWAYS been a feminist.

If I hear once again that argument in the needless defence of capitalism, I will tear out my own head and eat it. Or better still, I will tear out the head of whoever is producing those asinine words and force it down his or her throat. Saying that “one system” is the only one that can possibly work is, frankly, insulting to the amazing capacity of human adaptability. We could most likely make any system work. Furthermore, the argument is also insulting to the also amazing capacity of humans to develop new systems. Do you REALLY think that, after 5000 years or so of (written) history, we have developed a system so perfect that won’t need any revision or replacing in the thousands of years humans might still have ahead? TOTAL NONSENSE!!!
We don’t even know if there were any other successful systems around before the coming of capitalism, as it is practically the only one we know of. But even if that were the case, it’s ludicrous to say that “just because something has been around with us since forever it will stay with us forever”. So has slavery, pal, and somehow, we have managed to overthrow it, at least in the most part of the so-called “developed” world.
Saying that this or that is the only possible thing that could possibly ever work is self-defeating. Which is very handy, if one can’t be arsed to get up and do anything. There are plenty of those people around; the “the world is on a rollercoaster to hell, it’s pointless to try to stop it” breed. Well, here I am, pal, and so many like me trying to stop that damn rollercoaster. If you can’t be bothered to do anything to help, at least have the decency to shut the fork up and move out of the way. The Mexicans have a great way to put it: “mucho ayuda el que no estorba” or “he who doesn’t get in the way, is already helping a lot”. HA!
Now, I am aware that I only have half a brain, the most part of which is filled up with Thunderbirds and Disney. Therefore, I point you to a much better article on this very topic by Robert Jensen, titled “Anti-Capitalism in Five Minutes”

Twisty’s idea on political blogging by females expressed in this post , can be somehow summarized by “I vigorously disagree with the idea, quoted in the SadieMag piece, that “women view politics through the same prism that they view life–one that is colored by emotion”". Twisty’s opinion on this? “This idea is patently whack”. She argues that women are perfectly capable of writing objectively. Now, while I agree entirely with this, I have a further point to add. Twisty almost gets it by blaming the patriarchy because of “the notion that “male” is always the default  condition, whereas “female” is a modifier indicating a sort of divergent, auxiliary, less important variant of normal”. She fails to point out that is precisely because of this, and because of the resulting devaluation of values with are considered “feminine”, that “colouring politics with emotions” is considered a BAD thing. Whatever politics are about, they are sure as hell about humans mainly. And humans can’t help but having emotions. Why should we keep emotions out of the “politics” table? I say, we have done so for too long now. The result can be summarized, amid simplistically, by noting that we have never been richer, and we have never been unhappier. We have never been so many, and we have never been so lonely. We have, through the over use of the “masculine” perspective, tried to solve all our problems by focusing on those aspects that are secondary in importance to our own happiness but without which, we couldn’t live, such as food and shelter, hoping that what really matters would sort itself out. And it hasn’t. Let’s bring back emotions to their rightful place in the “importance scale”. They might be able to get us through this glorious mess of consumerism, war, violence, predation, and the like.